Commission outlines 5 scenarios for future of EU in white paper

The European Commission has outlined five scenarios for the future of the European Union in a white paper obtained by POLITICO ahead of its publication on Wednesday.

The scenarios are entitled “carrying on,” “nothing but the single market,” “those who want more do more,” “doing less more efficiently,” and “doing much more together.”

The paper is an attempt by the Commission, led by President Jean-Claude Juncker, to shape a major debate about the EU’s future following Britain’s shock decision to leave. The document is also intended to influence a declaration by the 27 countries remaining in the EU at the bloc’s 60th anniversary summit on March 25 in Rome.

The paper starts with a somber tone, acknowledging the existential struggle the EU is facing due to crises over Brexit, migration and the eurozone. “Europe’s challenges show no sign of abating,” the paper says. It also notes the difficult balancing act facing the EU, as “many Europeans consider the Union as either too distant or too interfering.”

While generally neutral in its language, the Commission at times makes its preferred option clear. For example, on eurozone governance, the Commission aligns itself with the most federal option by saying it will issue a paper based on the 2015 Five Presidents’ Report, which called for a eurozone finance minister and stricter controls over the budgets of the 19 countries that use the single currency.

Here are more details of the five scenarios:

Scenario 1: Carrying on

This scenario assumes that staying the course will involve small, smooth changes to the functioning of the EU. The Commission says “carrying on” will deliver “incremental progress.” This option is based on national governments agreeing to deepen the EU’s single market, pool some military capabilities and “speaking with one voice on foreign affairs,” while leaving key responsibilities like border control mostly in the hands of national governments.

There are some dark clouds hanging over this option in phrases such as “Europeans are mostly able to travel across borders without stopping for checks,” indicating trouble ahead for the visa-free Schengen Zone if changes are not agreed to its management. The Commission warns: “Continuous improvement to border management is needed to keep up with new challenges. If this is not done, some countries may wish to maintain targeted internal controls.”

Scenario 2: Nothing but the single market

Here the Commission focuses on the achievement with the broadest base of support: its single market. The Commission is not enthusiastic about this option, noting that “decision-making may be simpler to understand but the capacity to act collectively is limited” and “this may widen the gap between expectations and delivery at all levels.”

With the single market as its main mission, the Commission believes, the EU would face a heightened risk to the euro, because it would have failed to finish establishing the eurozone’s economic governance, leaving it vulnerable to new financial crises.

Companies would likely face more border checks, and EU members would revert to pursuing bilateral foreign policy. Trade deals and defense cooperation would also be more difficult.

On a day-to-day level, the Commission believes connected cars would not take off in Europe under this scenario “due to the absence of EU-wide rules and technical standards.”

Scenario 3: Those who want more do more

This is effectively a multi-speed EU based on “coalitions of the willing” in specific policy areas such as defense, internal security, taxation or social matters. Under this scenario the Commission assumes that all 27 members would still make general progress on a deeper single market.

The Commission believes this model would lead to differences in citizens’ rights and is not optimistic that eurozone governance could be completed. However, it envisages that it would allow national militaries that have close relations with one another to move quickly into new fields like drone surveillance, or for aligned economies to created a unified business law code.

Scenario 4: Doing less more efficiently

By “doing less,” the Commission apparently means is “better tackle certain priorities together.” In other words, not “less” but doing more in “a reduced number of areas.”

The major headline achievements would be a fully resourced European Border and Coast Guard, a single voice on foreign policy and the establishment of a European Defense Union.

The Commission sees other priority areas for deeper cooperation as innovation, trade and security. Research could be focused on digitization and decarbonization of the economy.

The Commission points out one problem with this scenario — it relies on EU countries agreeing among themselves on the areas on which they want to cooperate more efficiently.

Scenario 5: Doing much more together

Here the EU27 go “further than ever before in all domains” — code for a federal EU.

The EU would get more of its “own resources” (the ability to raise revenue through tax), the eurozone would be completed along the lines of the Five Presidents’ Report issued in 2015. The Commission prefers this option for eurozone governance and said it will issue a reflection paper to that effect in the coming months.

Under this scenario the EU would also assume powers to speak for all of Europe on trade and foreign policy, and would assume global leadership for fighting climate change and on humanitarian issues.

There would be “far greater and quicker decision-making” in Brussels, but the Commission acknowledges “there is the risk of alienating parts of society which feel that the EU lacks legitimacy.”

Elena

alan

Mike

One has to admit: for decades these 23.000 bureaucrats have succeeded in convincing all other EU citizens to reward them lavishly for merely producing outlines like these.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 12:42 PM CET

John Marchant

Blah, Blah, More EU, Blah, so Nero fiddles again whilst the EU burns. No wonder the UK voted to leave, what a disaster the EU is under Juncker The Drunker’s Leadership. More Failed Politicians and Policies for a failed Union.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 12:47 PM CET

European

The fifth scenario is the best, if the EU is given a democratic constitution. I’m crazy? Yes, I’m as crazy as the founding fathers of the US, who – despite the opposition of many citizens of the thirteen colonies – decided to build a true federal union (with national government, parliament, judges and so forth) instead of a simple confederation.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 1:05 PM CET

CivisEuropeae

I am with you @ European: The fifth scenario is the best option for the future of Europe in a global world, a united Europe is a vision worth working for. We need a single voice, a strong presence, a strong union. This must be a fully inclusive process, open to civil participation and absolute democratic process, to ultimately create a strong constitution based on political equality, transparency and openness, with respect for the principle of subsidiarity. To be successful, the full completion of the political and economic union of Europe must benefit all citizens and must be connected to all of them. A union where all citizens enjoy political equality.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 1:42 PM CET

YellowSubmarine

I am surprised there is an option 2. It would not have been included twelve months ago. Brexit is opening up the debate in Europe, which can only be a good thing. Pity we had to take one for the team, again, in order to bring it about.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 1:42 PM CET

maciekimaciek

The process of uniting Europe was very successful under the Treaty of Rome.
This success started to fade with the introduction of Euro under the Treaty of Maastricht.
The process of uniting Europe became failure under the Treaty of Lisbon.
Conclusions are evident.
Common market is good for Europeans, federation is not.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 2:11 PM CET

Suzie America

Option 2 is much the same as currently is. EU would still continue to set rules and laws the rest must follow. There should be a 3rd which is a free trade zone like nafta.

Ps I love how those lobbying for a federalist Europe do so for egotistical reasons. Ie take a global lead, have a global presence. Never based on what’s good for the EU citizen.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 2:22 PM CET

CSK

@Yellow Submarine

I agree.

It always takes a massive kick up the ar$e to get Brussels to make (inevitable) decisions!!

Posted on 3/1/17 | 2:23 PM CET

maciekimaciek

@European
There is much more adequate word than crazy to describe comparing uniting of 13 more or less homogenious British colonies into USA with uniting 30+ European countries with different histories, cultures, economies into a federation.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 2:31 PM CET

Fake news

Haha is this true It will be eu two speeds

Posted on 3/1/17 | 2:32 PM CET

sgu66

Is the issue the EU or the politicians? If the politicians had a clear vision for Europe that did not revolve around themselves, would the EU be in the state it currently is? Perhaps a federal Europe where the EP has clear mandate beyond the control of nation states would further enhance the position of a global Europe, but considering how difficult the politicians (both national an EP) find it to respond to current (and future) issues, as well as too much influence from a small group of nation states, somehow I doubt there is the ability in the current political class to pull off this approach.

CSK

What Juncker is saying is that he wants a federalist and centralised decision-making process, ergo, autocratic control, at the expense of a democratic input from EU societies, ergo, no say whatsoever!

So, where does that leave your “…fully inclusive process, open to civil participation and absolute democratic process…?!!

Posted on 3/1/17 | 2:33 PM CET

EUcitiZEN

Dear Brexiters, get used to the idea that you are leaving. You won, congratulations, our affairs are no concern of yours any more. So why the obsession? Are you consumed by insecurities and doubts about your future? Do you wish us ill, because you have Bregrets and misery loves company? Do you hope to rule the ruins? All of the above?
As your reputed foreign minister says, “come off it sunshine”!

Posted on 3/1/17 | 2:35 PM CET

rer

IMHO option 1st or 4th (if EU leaders would be trustworthy, not as it is now that they care more about migrants than Europeans).

Posted on 3/1/17 | 2:59 PM CET

maciekimaciek

The fifth scenario is the best option for the future of the European 23000+ bureaucracy.
That’s for sure.
What is left for Europeans?
Jabber on vision, single voice, strong presence, civil participation, transparency, openness, subsidiarity, equality, vision, single voice, strong presence, civil participation, transparency, openness, subsidiarity, equality, vision, single voice, strong presence, civil participation, transparency, openness, subsidiarity, equality…

Posted on 3/1/17 | 3:02 PM CET

Gregory

Option 5 for the euro area, option 3 for the other EU MS

Posted on 3/1/17 | 3:33 PM CET

Tom Cullem

Nothing to see here, move along. Ironic: the option probably most favoured by electorates is the one least favoured by Brussels.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 4:48 PM CET

Eli

Option nb.2! We need only single market and not more than that, please! No more Commission’s directives on immigration or foreign policy, or social standards and human rights (gender ideology), energy sector liberalisation or lgbt laws. Give back the power to nation states and people.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 5:00 PM CET

Anne

A two-speed Europe would be best. The original EU (Western Europe) would form the core. The former communist countries (and a couple of others) would make up the second tier.

Western Europe and the former Soviet satellite states are currently too far apart culturally, economically and politically to form a unified group. Moreover central Europe contains many obstructionist states, economic basket-cases and/or Russian proxies such as Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Greece.
But any of those could later move into the core group in time subject to a stricter criteria.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 5:14 PM CET

David Proudfoot

THE EU WILL CHOOSE OPTION 5, WHY? Painfully obvious and I picked this up ages ago. The whole purpose of this exercise is to tell member states that the EU intends to tax their citizens at source. Either there will be a separate EU tax, or they will takeover all the member states’ tax collecting and give them back a few euros to play with. They intend to reduce member states’ Governments to little more than town councils. Glad we are going to be out of it or they would have taken everything we have got!

Posted on 3/1/17 | 5:19 PM CET

from italy

a federalist EU would seek to continue homogenizing member nations- our culture- our sovereignty and paper over our histories. An open transparent democratic EU is laughable. It is not going to happen. Italy has continued it’s decline since it joined. The ” Euro” should really be called the deutsche mark because that it what it is. No thanks.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 5:22 PM CET

JELENA

@Anne – what about a 2 speed EU where the pre-Islamic countries of Western Europe yield to demographics and form a caliphate with Islam as new ideology, and Eastern Europe carries on European culture, politics and identity?

Posted on 3/1/17 | 5:56 PM CET

Bob

Option 2 is the best if it curtails the EU to economic issues only, a revival of the EEC in a way.

The EU got into trouble and began drawing heat when it got tangled up in culture wars, the EU should stay out of that, remaining a neutral trade and development organization.

For those countries that want internal borders, migration controls they can have them at the economic cost to their society and not have the screeching of EU liberals condemning them breeding discontent.

A separate European security council could be formed to act as a unifying agent for security, deportation and military matters were co-operation will go much smoother free from “EU ideals” which are a detriment to security.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 6:04 PM CET

Joe Thorpe

EUcitiZEN This is in English & as the only official English speaking nation in the EU it is clearly directed at UK readers so we are being invited to offer an opinion otherwise the comments section wouldn’t be open?

Posted on 3/1/17 | 6:54 PM CET

Jodocus2

Mr. Juncker presented a good and logical set of proposals. I wonder if the member states have the courage to actually choose (i.e. any option other than plan 1: business as usual).

Of course the peanut gallery responds by calling them obvious but they forget that clearer political backing (down to the citizens) is needed to keep the EU on track. Having made a choice they can’t very well back out of their responsibility anymore (not that they won’t try but it will be harder).

If people don’t like that, they can opt for plan 2: just a free-trade zone, and slash any EU service not explicitly needed to support that. If they don’t opt for plan 2, then they can also stop using the EU as an excuse for their own shortcomings. With the worst elements of the peanut gallery (Brexiteers) on their way to irrelevance (as far as the EU is concerned) the rest can start retrieving their sense of responsibility. A double bonus as it were.

Perhaps even the gratuitous prattle about “non democratic EU decisions”. The EU is a club of governments, and (in principle) has no truck with citizens other than through those governments. If the EU has a parliament it is because its members (and indirectly its citizens) want it that way. If people want the UE to be more “democratic” then they can start by giving the EU parliament more power, which can only come at the expense of the members (i.e. the governments).

Posted on 3/1/17 | 6:59 PM CET

Christoph Kuhlmann

Political issues should be discussed with objective arguments. Neither scenarios nor polemics are suitable to replace relevant debates. The EU should dare more democracy and reduce the party’s will. This also means pan-European votes on individual topics, from citizens with an in-depth knowledge of the subject. It makes no sense to make decisions at the level of the tabloid journalism. Important is a sound democratic legitimation and a high transparency of decision-making processes. The Commission does not meet these criteria. To this extent, Junkers scenarios are formulated too broadly to be of relevance.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 8:45 PM CET

Franco

Federal EU all the way ahead! We have alread lost so much time dragging our feet around.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 9:00 PM CET

bojo's mojo

For people who believe in scenario 5, scenario 3 is thebest way to get there without alienating the other 50% of the European populations. If you do believe in the value of cooperation, why not let it evolve gradually rather than force it down people’s throats?

Posted on 3/1/17 | 10:12 PM CET

Joe

Based on events and EU attitude in past few years, I think Junker’s real vision for Europe is as one Islamic caliphate unified under the will of Alah. Not a new concept really. Emperor Constantine used Christianity as a unifying force for the empire. All the Junker dream needs is a replacement with the current nationalist based population with a unifying Islam-based population.

Posted on 3/1/17 | 11:40 PM CET

Sub- Continent

Poor Mr. J. HAS to issue some document for debate on the 60th bash. Bet he has no stomach for any such debate. A tired person surrounded by tired folk – with citizens snapping at his Team’s feet. As the song goes: “Problems. problems, problems all day long”. No real answers, and certainly no easy escape route for EU-mafia, nor for certain screwed up countries within the EU-construct. Ah well..

Posted on 3/2/17 | 12:52 AM CET

ares

option 6

rip ue

Posted on 3/2/17 | 12:53 AM CET

Maverick

Let’s be brutally honest the EU needs a referendum of the entire E27 member state citizens to understand what the people want the EU to be.

Of course they won’t but if they are serious about ‘pushing the reset’ it is what is required to provide the EU legitimacy on the way forward that it is for the people, and by the people.

Posted on 3/2/17 | 6:26 AM CET

Franco

@Maverick
Yes! A pan-european referendum on those 5 options would be great to trace the future of the continent.

Posted on 3/2/17 | 9:24 AM CET

rwin

@maciekimaciek, @mike: 23000+ beaurocrats? Working for 500 Mio odd people! Do you realize that large cities employ more civil servants for less inhabitants – London: approx 80000.
Please keep to facts, then issues are easier to understand.
Something that we must understand: the world is changing rapidly, focal points of economical and political power are shifting. It is always better to stick together rather than divide.

Posted on 3/2/17 | 12:35 PM CET

Pro Europe = anti EU

Scenario 2 is the only one that is remotely acceptable.

I can see that the usual suspects (“European” ea) are already calling for northern European countries to give up 20-30% of our wealth just so that things can be “more equal”. Because that is what is needed. You cannot have federation without fiscal transfers and considering income/GDP differences between European countries are larger than those between US states these transfers need to be larger than they are in the USA.

In the USA states contribute some 8-12% of their state “GDP” to the federal budget. So in Europe it would be larger, probably starting at no less than 20%.

I am sure that “European” and “Civis Europeae” have some proposals where Germany and the Netherlands could cut 20% of national spending in order to transfer the money to Greece, Italy and Spain.

You see, the reason fiscal transfers worked in the USA is because there was room on top for federal spending. But a country like, say, France already sees government spending contributing more than 50% of GDP, there is simply no room on top for another 20% to give to Brussels, not at the expense of domestic spending and I can tell you that no more that 2-3% of people (well to do elites) are going to vote for that sort of thing.

And since without fiscal transfers the Euro cannot work it should be abolished as soon as feasible.

Posted on 3/2/17 | 2:03 PM CET

maciekimaciek

@rwin
I checked the facts. There are actually more than 55 000 EU bureaucrats eager to multiply in case 5.
I do not need to check anything to know EU bureaucracy scope of duties and responsabilities is peanuts compared to this of London civil servants.
The world is changing rapidly indeed and the currant EU bureaucracy does not stand to challenges.
Will we stick on this together or rather divide?

Posted on 3/2/17 | 10:44 PM CET

Maverick

Apparently the Visegrad’s proposals are;

Opposing two-speed Europe

The leaders state that the EU’s unity is of “vital importance and should always be the starting point of our approach”.

Preserving EU budget, cohesion

The joint statement stresses the importance of further developing the single market and preserving the four freedoms on which it is based. It warns that “social standards cannot be uniform”.

Security, global issues

The leaders advocate strengthening the EU’s external borders and a return to “a proper functioning of the Schengen area”, despite the fact that Hungary continues to build fences at its borders.

“Complementarity between the EU and NATO has to be ensured,” the leaders continued, adding that European defence capabilities have to be developed, while preserving the role of NATO in providing collective defence in Europe. They also advocate the maintaining of the transatlantic relation and continuing “close cooperation with the UK

Preference for Council

The Visegrád leaders reiterate their preference for EU decision making in the Council, rather than in the Commission. Last June they said that Brexit negotiations should be led by the Council President, rather than by the Commission.

Posted on 3/3/17 | 1:43 PM CET

Maggie Thatcher

The EU is as corrupt and mad as it can get. How can it get worse: Sample: Manservisi, DG of DEVCO (fired by Mogherini last year), the Commission’s largest DG, has sent below email with a new organisational chart for DG DEVCO on 25 February. While he is speaking of minor changes to avoid the member states and HR having a say, in reality these are major changes, especially in directorates B and F (formerly H, Asia). He is not involving member states nor the european parliament. In reality, he is putting his people in place,mostly Italians. When will he be held accountable and brought to justice? Everyone knows he is a difficult character (like most Italians), but Italians represent the second largest nationality in the Commission after the Belgians. Enough is enough! There are countless OLAF investigations in DEVCO against the fraud committed by Manservisi and his Italian gang. As usual without consequences. Italians are as corrupt as they can get. See below his email. (Instead of always writing about Trump Politico should help ridding the EU from the influential Italian Mafia)

As you know, I presented a draft new organisational chart for DG DEVCO during the senior management retreat on 17 February 2017.

This chart builds on the discussions we held during the full management seminar of 11 November 2016 and its conclusions, which I shared with you in my mail of 23 November 2016 (Ares(2016) 6580354), and on a number of previous and subsequent informal discussions with colleagues.

As you can see, the modifications are limited. As I have said several times, DG DEVCO does not need deep changes at this delicate moment, where delivering effectively is an essential objective and duty. Rather, DEVCO would benefit from streamlining, clearer readability of its structure, and a solid change in the ways of working, which have been based for some time on an approach that has, unfortunately, encouraged ‘silos’.

In the light of this, the key drivers of the changes are the following:

1. To align the structure of the proposed new European Consensus on Development, to have an administration fully aligned with the policy framework.

3. To have visible and operational points of interconnection and cross-fertilisation:

a. The setting of two units bringing sectorial policy knowledge into the programming work of the geographic units and systematically liaising with sectorial policy units to ensure coherence and complementarity in the policy mix in a given country / region (D4 and G3);

b. To confirm and further expand units which are functionally working for several directorates;

c. To set within DEVCO and linked with the investment and private sector units, the Task Force which would later evolve into the Secretariat of the External Investment Plan (EIP). This Task Force will report to both DG NEAR and DG DEVCO.

4. To streamline the Task Force Knowledge, Performance and Results around three objectives: knowledge, performance (evaluation), and results. Units will be reshaped accordingly.

5. To streamline Directorate R to be able to deliver effectively the operational support needed and to be fully connected with the Commission corporate functions (notably human resources and IT).

I would like to draw your attention to the red boxes. These are not formally part of the organisational chart, since they are not administrative units. They are, however, key internal and upstream platforms to ensure internal strategic steer, coherence and coordination (as is already successfully the case with the BSSC).

Finally, I would like to underline one simple yet important fact: DEVCO is a Directorate-General of the Commission and it can and should work in close cooperation with all other services, those part of the Relex group (including the EEAS, under the responsibility of the HRVP) and those dealing with other EU policies, whose knowledge, expertise, and network are essential to our work. Working collectively will ensure strong and credible EU action.

I suggest you discuss this draft organisational chart internally and I would be pleased to have your views and feedback by the end of next week (3 March), directly to me.

I address this e-mail also to the Bureau of Heads of Delegations in order to liaise with the delegations for this same purpose.

I count, as always, on your collaboration and support.

Yours,

Stefano Manservisi

Posted on 3/3/17 | 11:34 PM CET

Federico

The 5th is the best

Posted on 3/5/17 | 12:46 PM CET

Don MacDonell

Unfortunately unelected bureaucrats continuously aspire to increasing their numbers and their power. This is not a strictly EU problem. For Europe to survive, I really believe the bureaucracy in Brussels has to be seriously deregulated with powers being devolved back to the national elected governments, in non common market trade areas. Then anti EU sentiments will subside. Unfortunately the bureaucracy will attempt to thwart any such move. A lot of them will needed to be fired. Will the EU take this route. Based on experience it will muddle on and may lose a couple of more members and become more ineffective.